Temporal storms are a bad implementation of a good idea.

[Andael]

1 hour ago, Teh Pizza Lady said:

To bring things back around to the initial discussion since we have gotten so far off track, I will say that I disagree that they are a bad implementation. They are a fair initial start, but as with all things, there probably is room for improvement. However the storms need to stay global and they need to remain an actual threat for pretty much any player regardless of whether they are just starting out or are 2-3 years into the game.

I am mostly in agreement here. Though I feel like the "fair initial start" is long overdue for improvement.

I'd even be happy to have a hint of the devs' plan here... are Temporal Storms "mostly as intended"? Or a placeholder with plans but more pieces need to fall into place? Some of the player base expects more enticing gameplay from them, or at least some less obnoxious spawn rules. If they're "basically done", then it's open to mods to offer improvements. If there're big plans, then mods might be a waste of effort.

I'm willing to wait for the vision to be realised. But if this part of it is finished, I'd be waiting... for nothing to come.

 

[MKMoose]

4 minutes ago, Andael said:

I'd even be happy to have a hint of the devs' plan here... are Temporal Storms "mostly as intended"? Or a placeholder with plans but more pieces need to fall into place?

Honestly, this is the main thing that frustrates me about the temporal mechanics. Rifts have been added very early in the history of the game, <= 1.2 if I recall correctly but I could be misremembering. Temporal storms and stability have been added in 1.12. Since then they've received little to no meaningful change, especially storms and stability, besides the addition of bowtorn and shivers.

They're supposedly so crucial to the game and story, yet the devs exhibit very little apparent interest in improving them in any way. They're not even on the roadmap, unless you count broad and mostly meaningless categories like "polishing and reworking of existing mechanics".

[CastIronFabric]

12 minutes ago, MKMoose said:

Honestly, this is the main thing that frustrates me about the temporal mechanics. Rifts have been added very early in the history of the game, <= 1.2 if I recall correctly but I could be misremembering. Temporal storms and stability have been added in 1.12. Since then they've received little to no meaningful change, especially storms and stability, besides the addition of bowtorn and shivers.

They're supposedly so crucial to the game and story, yet the devs exhibit very little apparent interest in improving them in any way. They're not even on the roadmap, unless you count broad and mostly meaningless categories like "polishing and reworking of existing mechanics".

How do we come to the conclusion that the are crucial to the game and story? has the dev weighed in on this in anyway that implies that? I actually do not know. I know that storms are referenced in the story but I do not know if to an extent that they are critical to the story baseline.

Edited March 5 by CastIronFabric

[Teh Pizza Lady]

1 hour ago, CastIronFabric said:

I would say your assessment on cooking is extremely subjective. I do not find cooking remotely 'uncompromising'. I am however inclined to avoid engaging anymore 

 

Well you were the one that asked. I'm not sure what you expected from this.

32 minutes ago, CastIronFabric said:

nope.

I reject the notion that cooking is 'uncompromising'. EDIT: to put a finer note, when the ads say this game is 'uncompromising' I am confident that cooking is not the list that backs that up, I also have not seen cooking mentioned in the few videos I have seen that go into detail as to why this game is 'uncompromising'

regardless, that is getting into subjective stuff that I am not going to engage in.

Then if the only thing that the ads mention is the only thing that's important to the game, then how do you rationalize that movie trailers often do not spoil the entire plot? You say you're not going to engage, but you keep coming back here with more of the same stuff to say. I don't know what you are expecting from any of this.

9 minutes ago, MKMoose said:

Honestly, this is the main thing that frustrates me about the temporal mechanics. Rifts have been added very early in the history of the game, <= 1.2 if I recall correctly but I could be misremembering. Temporal storms and stability have been added in 1.12. Since then they've received little to no meaningful change, especially storms and stability, besides the addition of bowtorn and shivers.

They're supposedly so crucial to the game and story, yet the devs exhibit very little apparent interest in improving them in any way. They're not even on the roadmap, unless you count broad and mostly meaningless categories like "polishing and reworking of existing mechanics".

My take on this is that it's a prototype system. They knew something had to be there to support something else. So they added it. Now we have seen that systems they put into place don't always stay the same, for example smithing and more recently berry bushes. They also completely overhauled the way you get fish to the point that fishing is actually fun and not the chore that it can be with some mods that I've played with that tried to make fishing "better" or more reliable.

In this case, they knew something had to be there to support the story part of Vintage Story. So it was added ahead of time. No one knew why. Then they added chapters 1 and 2 and lo and behold, it started to make sense. These things were added as story mechanics to tell the tale that this game is trying to tell in 8 chapters, that have apparently already been written.

So I think it's fair to say that the devs probably do have interest in improving them, but until something in the story shifts to warrant a drastic change, it's probably going to be relegated to the Polish and Rework portion of the roadmap.

5 minutes ago, CastIronFabric said:

How do we come to the conclusion that the are crucial to the game and story? has the dev weighed in on this in anyway that implies that? I actually do not know

Read above. You have mentioned at least twice that you no longer wish to engage with the subjective side of this, which is fair, but I and others have explained how these systems are objectively tied to the game's "uncompromising" core. Chapters 1 and 2 already tie the temporal mechanics directly into the story and world building. The rifts, storms, and stability aren’t just random gameplay systems, they exist because of what happened to the world. That’s why people know they are crucial to the game and story, without any dev explanation needed here, that is clear to see. At this point it comes down to whether you accept the accounts of others regarding the story chapters and the relevance of the game mechanics explained there. If you have played them and somehow reached a conclusion that contradicts the vast majority of people, it’s difficult to understand how that could be...

[Calmest_of_lakes]

I agree with Blaiyze; it's very obnoxious how you can't discuss this at all without people strawmanning you, or straight up ignoring what you are saying. It's irritating, and straight up unconstructive. The storm mechanic has a ton of issues with it, and telling people to just "disable it" is ignoring their complaints and the fact that they want to like it. 

[Teh Pizza Lady]

6 minutes ago, Calmest_of_lakes said:

I agree with Blaiyze; it's very obnoxious how you can't discuss this at all without people strawmanning you, or straight up ignoring what you are saying. It's irritating, and straight up unconstructive. The storm mechanic has a ton of issues with it, and telling people to just "disable it" is ignoring their complaints and the fact that they want to like it. 

Unfortunately by the time I got to this thread it had already gotten blown up by others who wanted to do that. I think there are improvements to be made, but without knowing where the rest of the story is going to go, it's hard to say what exactly would even be appropriate. Several things have been discussed and I think there was even a compromise to be made at one point that suggested just a zone of safety around the player where nothing could spawn at all. Most everything else I have seen is just arguing semantics or suggestions that I think might fit better as mods so that people can pick and choose their preferred experience.

[Blaiyze]

1 hour ago, PineReseen said:

 

Okay, I have never had anything spawn on top of me when a storm was ongoing, so I can't really speak on this.

However, reducing drifter spawns in houses wouldn't necessarily conflict with what I am trying to do, as I'd prefer the player to initiate fights, rather than the drifters. Having creatures spawn in a house is a rather artificial way to force a fight, and I'd rather have the player need to restore stability to more naturally make the player do something.

 

I unfortunately have the worlds worst RNG lol - all the most improbable things seem to happen to me or when people play with me. I've had a bowtorn spawn directly behind me in my home whilst baking bread during a storm and near one-shot me. Scared TF out of me - which yeah, CAN be thrilling, but like c'mon - why give us chiseling and the ability to make things pretty if we're then forced down a building pipeline that disallows us to play with aesthetics? That therein is one of the things underpinning my frustrations. 

VS leans into the sandbox-y nature of the other block game, just with an actual proper story and lore to discover - something I LOVE. But then we're hamstrung from creative building to prevent spawns inside our builds or just bury yourself and ride out the storm by disengaging with the game for the duration? Nein. Bad game design hence the various topics on this subject.

Despite all my frustrations - yes, I do like the Temporal Storms, in theory. In practice, they have some wrinkles to be worked out and enjoy engaging with people to see what suggestions they have, which is the partial point of having public forums in which the devs encourage feedback on the game. Whether they implement our suggestions obviously remains up to them.

1 hour ago, Ceridith said:

This sums up exactly why it's currently a bad game mechanic.

Firstly in that players can completely sidestep any challenge of it by simply boxing themselves in for the duration, but more importantly that doing so is the only reliable way to survive it in the earlier game for most players. It's arguably even the preferred way to deal with it mid to late game as there's little payoff for fighting off monsters that are spawned during it. If a game mechanic makes the player want to step away from the game to wait for it to be over, it's not a good mechanic.

 

My point precisely.

Edited March 5 by Blaiyze

[Calmest_of_lakes]

31 minutes ago, Teh Pizza Lady said:

Unfortunately by the time I got to this thread it had already gotten blown up by others who wanted to do that.

Okay, but several people at this point have laid down reasons very fair reasons why storms need to be reworked, and why the intent from the devs makes it very difficult to improve. 
Telling people to just disable the mechanic (which is not what this discussion was about at all,) instead of trying to lay down suggestions on how it can be improved isn't wanted in the slightest. Even I, who likes temporal storms, believe they need an overhaul.

 

I said earlier, but the fact that these sorts of threads keep getting made should be a good indicator it is a part of the game in dire need of some TLC.

 

Going back to the 'lore reasons' argument that gets thrown about willy nilly: there isn't anything in the lore that states that temporal storms can't work in a different way; it's been noted in the games that, if anything, they have been abating. And besides; seperation of gameplay and story is a common tool in videogame development for a very good reason. As an example, if the lore was "temporal storms can make monsters pop out of thin air, and stop being afraid/repelled by light for the time being," it would be a trivial and subtle retcon for the devs to change that to "temporal storms used to  make monsters pop out of thin air, and stop being afraid/repelled by light for the time being. Now, it's somewhat different."

As an aside: if a new player starts the game, and people tell them to disable a major mechanic that the devs really, really, want you to engage with to the point of being unavoidable, I don't think it would be surprising in the slightest if this made this new player wary about whether the game would be a good use of time or not. 
 

Edited March 5 by Calmest_of_lakes
Fixing tone to be less immature

[CastIronFabric]

21 minutes ago, Calmest_of_lakes said:

As an aside: if a new player starts the game, and people tell them to disable a major mechanic that the devs really, really, want you to engage with to the point of being unavoidable, I don't think it would be surprising in the slightest if this made this new player wary about whether the game would be a good use of time or not. 
 

I have seen the argument of forcing a player into an experience that they do not want by removing all methods a player comes up with to avoid the experience in this game and many other games as well. To put it lightly I find this concept very disturbing.

I understand there is a gray area but the default should always be 'if the player does not want to do something and has found a way to avoid it with standard game play then leave them alone' instead of 'how dare someone else do something I think they should not do in order to avoid doing something I think they should enjoy but they do not, too bad for them' the latter is just flat out very creepy.

So in short: If one want to fight the monsters during a storm one should go do it and not concern themselves with what other people are doing.

Edited March 5 by CastIronFabric

[Thorfinn]

4 hours ago, Teh Pizza Lady said:

How long does it take in-game before the storms completely drain all stability?

I was running into it about the middle of the second year. I imagine it's possible I was not full up before the storm, since I don't watch that too closely, but it has happened several times. Suppose it might also be wilderness, or even cranking the storm frequency all the way up. Dunno. After it happened a few times, I just stopped trying to shelter through them and went out into all the storms. It is, after all, a decent time to scythe grass or, if you have iron tools, dig sand or dirt or peat, even clay if you still need.

[EDIT]

Oh, wait, my bad. I've been just copying playstyle from one game to the next. Not only do I have storm frequency cranked, I also have storm length cranked. Maybe it doesn't do it at 100%?

Edited March 5 by Thorfinn

[LadyWYT]

3 minutes ago, Thorfinn said:

I was running into it about the middle of the second year. I imagine it's possible I was not full up before the storm, since I don't watch that too closely, but it has happened several times. Suppose it might also be wilderness, or even cranking the storm frequency all the way up. Dunno. After it happened a few times, I just stopped trying to shelter through them and went out into all the storms. It is, after all, a decent time to scythe grass or, if you have iron tools, dig sand or dirt or peat, even clay if you still need.

It's probably a factor of Wilderness Survival difficulty. On Standard, temporal storms occur every 10-20 days, increasing in strength/frequency by +10% each time up to a limit of 100%. In contrast, Wilderness Survial has temporal storms every 5-10 days, increasing in strength/frequency by +15% each time up to a limit of 150%.

My experience on Standard is that the heavier storms don't really start to arrive until around the end of the first year(year 0) to around the beginning of the second year(year 1). Wilderness Survival, for the most part, seems to shorten the time the player has to prepare.

Incidentally, if the player adjusts the storm frequency themselves to something other than what the defaults are, they'll get different results. Generally, increasing the interval means not only fewer storms to encounter, but that the storms will be much milder when they do occur. Shortening the interval means not only more storms, but much stronger ones as well. What's currently missing in those options, that would be a great addition, is an option for relatively few storms per year, but very strong when they do happen. Or the opposite: more storms per year, but quite mild rather than strong.

[Teh Pizza Lady]

34 minutes ago, CastIronFabric said:

I have seen the argument of forcing a player into an experience that they do not want by removing all methods a player comes up with to avoid the experience in this game and many other games as well. To put it lightly I find this concept very disturbing.

I understand there is a gray area but the default should always be 'if the player does not want to do something and has found a way to avoid it with standard game play then leave them alone' instead of 'how dare someone else do something I think they should not do in order to avoid doing something I think they should enjoy but they do not, too bad for them' the latter is just flat out very creepy.

So in short: If one want to fight the monsters during a storm one should go do it and not concern themselves with what other people are doing.

I agree with this point in principle. If the player wishes to engage with normal gameplay mechanics and manages to find a way to avoid or mitigate a mechanic they don't particularly enjoy, that isn't a problem with the game. Solutions driven by need are part of what makes sandbox gameplay so interesting.

That said, my earlier comments about how the mechanic currently functions and whether it creates meaningful gameplay rather than frustration still stand. There is a stark difference between players working around something and a mechanic actively encouraging unintended gameplay because the implementation needs improvement. That is to say, I still firmly believe that "dig a hole and hide" is a valid solution to the problem until the player is better experienced and/or prepared for the storm.

And that said, I think your earlier comments about the on-ramp still hold merit and that perhaps the first trader you run into could tell you more about it and give you some advice ("either arm yourself or dig a hole to hide in as I have done" kind of thing), From the lore bits and stories we know outside of the game, the traders and villagers are very much affected by the temporal madness that is present in the world and the recent adjustments to the traders (from wagons to huts) seems to reflect this strongly.

So while I may disagree with some of your conclusions, the general idea that players shouldn't be policed for how they choose to engage with or avoid a mechanic until they're ready is something I can definitely agree with. I'm glad to see our views aligning better on this.

31 minutes ago, Thorfinn said:

Oh, wait, my bad. I've been just copying playstyle from one game to the next. Not only do I have storm frequency cranked, I also have storm length cranked. Maybe it doesn't do it at 100%?

oh yeah a longer storm would definitely do it, especially since the heavier storms do tend to last longer, it feels.

Edited March 5 by Teh Pizza Lady
forgot a thought

[Andael]

17 minutes ago, Teh Pizza Lady said:

And that said, I think your earlier comments about the on-ramp still hold merit

Here, you're replying to CastIronFabric, but I'm pretty sure it was Blaiyze who was talking of on-ramp for early game.

CastIronFabric's rigid stance is basically that Storms are bad unless they never interfere (eg. you "go to them"), much like they turn off hostility because they don't like being interrupted by a wolf or a bear. They also seem to expect everyone to realize playing their way is the right way. I really don't think you're in much agreement with that. My understanding is that you want adversity. I do too, but with more nuance and care -- less random-rolls; more systems.

 

[CastIronFabric]

43 minutes ago, Teh Pizza Lady said:

I agree with this point in principle. If the player wishes to engage with normal gameplay mechanics and manages to find a way to avoid or mitigate a mechanic they don't particularly enjoy, that isn't a problem with the game. Solutions driven by need are part of what makes sandbox gameplay so interesting.

That said, my earlier comments about how the mechanic currently functions and whether it creates meaningful gameplay rather than frustration still stand. There is a stark difference between players working around something and a mechanic actively encouraging unintended gameplay because the implementation needs improvement. That is to say, I still firmly believe that "dig a hole and hide" is a valid solution to the problem until the player is better experienced and/or prepared for the storm.

And that said, I think your earlier comments about the on-ramp still hold merit and that perhaps the first trader you run into could tell you more about it and give you some advice ("either arm yourself or dig a hole to hide in as I have done" kind of thing), From the lore bits and stories we know outside of the game, the traders and villagers are very much affected by the temporal madness that is present in the world and the recent adjustments to the traders (from wagons to huts) seems to reflect this strongly.

So while I may disagree with some of your conclusions, the general idea that players shouldn't be policed for how they choose to engage with or avoid a mechanic until they're ready is something I can definitely agree with. I'm glad to see our views aligning better on this.

oh yeah a longer storm would definitely do it, especially since the heavier storms do tend to last longer, it feels.

sorry I do not fully follow you I was not responding to you about that

[CastIronFabric]

13 minutes ago, Andael said:

Here, you're replying to CastIronFabric, but I'm pretty sure it was Blaiyze who was talking of on-ramp for early game.

CastIronFabric's rigid stance is basically that Storms are bad unless they never interfere (eg. you "go to them"), much like they turn off hostility because they don't like being interrupted by a wolf or a bear. They also seem to expect everyone to realize playing their way is the right way. I really don't think you're in much agreement with that. My understanding is that you want adversity. I do too, but with more nuance and care -- less random-rolls; more systems.

 

My view that 'storms' should be a place you go to is a separate point entirely from what I was saying. 

[Garro]

I think you are in the minority opinion on that.

The developers intent is clearly that storms should be an ever present threat, something I and others agree with.

The main point of contention many, including myself, have is the title of the thread. Storms are a good idea that have been implemented in a poor and hopefully temporary way until something more interesting and deep can be fleshed out.

Edited March 5 by Garro

[CastIronFabric]

4 minutes ago, Garro said:

I think you are in the minority opinion on that.

The developers intent is clearly that storms should be an ever present threat, something I and others agree with.

The main point of contention many, including myself, have is the title of the thread. Storms are a good idea that have been implemented in a poor and hopefully temporary way until something more interesting and deep can be fleshed out.

Here we go again.

The only evidence that the storms are the way the developers want them is because they are as they are. Which is true for everything in the game. In fact, the same evidence that suggest that they should be ever present is also the same evidence that they should be EXACTLY as they are in total and not changed. The logic you want to apply to 'why they should be global' can also be applied to every single aspect of storms as they exists right now.

regardless, that is not related to the point I was making.

Edited March 5 by CastIronFabric

[Garro]

I never said they should be global. In fact I do not think that. If anything they should act more like real weather and blow through areas like actual storms we have in the game right now.

I simply said that I do not think the current implementation of them are good or interesting.

Edited March 5 by Garro

[CastIronFabric]

7 minutes ago, Garro said:

I never said they should be global. In fact I do not think that. If anything they should act more like real weather and blow through areas like actual storms we have in the game right now.

I simply said that I do not think the current implementation of them are good or interesting.

I challenge your claim below. I would request evidence that suggests its true. That all said, all of this is not related to the assertion everyone is responding to.

Quote

The developers intent is clearly that storms should be an ever present threat

 

[The Lerf]

I don't think we're going to see 'improvements' to Temporal Storms as much as we're going to be seeing improvements to all the systems surrounding them. Things like enemy AI, the enemy sandbox, more Jonas tech constructs like the Rift Ward, etc. Unless AI pathing becomes more than 'seek player position', you'll be mobbed. Unless there's more enemy variety beyond 'melee damage focused unit', you'll be mobbed. Unless spawns become something other than instant apparitions, you won't be able to react to something spawning on top of you. Unless enemy strength is tuned, you'll be one-shot. Unless enemy health is tuned, a copper falx will not be able to handle a medium storm. We simply do not have the tools in game for players to engage with storms in a way that's satisfying and in spirit with developer intentions.

And the start of storm changing should begin focusing on the new player experience. Tutorialization of the mechanics is fine during the first weak Temporal Storm, but realistically what ways does any player have to prepare for them? Beyond putting on your highest tier armor and weapons, or your broom closet, or your cheese strat? I'd like preparation to come in the form of constructed defenses; things to pull aggro, things to slow enemies, things to blind them, lower their health, etc. Straight up, why are we engaging with the rustbeasts on an even playing field with swords? We have technology, and maybe eventually we'll get simple traps and mid-game forged mechanisms and late-game Jonas constructs to help deal with storms, but the game is still unfinished. 

[CastIronFabric]

2 minutes ago, The Lerf said:

I don't think we're going to see 'improvements' to Temporal Storms as much as we're going to be seeing improvements to all the systems surrounding them. Things like enemy AI, the enemy sandbox, more Jonas tech constructs like the Rift Ward, etc. Unless AI pathing becomes more than 'seek player position', you'll be mobbed. Unless there's more enemy variety beyond 'melee damage focused unit', you'll be mobbed. Unless spawns become something other than instant apparitions, you won't be able to react to something spawning on top of you. Unless enemy strength is tuned, you'll be one-shot. Unless enemy health is tuned, a copper falx will not be able to handle a medium storm. We simply do not have the tools in game for players to engage with storms in a way that's satisfying and in spirit with developer intentions.

And the start of storm changing should begin focusing on the new player experience. Tutorialization of the mechanics is fine during the first weak Temporal Storm, but realistically what ways does any player have to prepare for them? Beyond putting on your highest tier armor and weapons, or your broom closet, or your cheese strat? I'd like preparation to come in the form of constructed defenses; things to pull aggro, things to slow enemies, things to blind them, lower their health, etc. Straight up, why are we engaging with the rustbeasts on an even playing field with swords? We have technology, and maybe eventually we'll get simple traps and mid-game forged mechanisms and late-game Jonas constructs to help deal with storms, but the game is still unfinished. 

god I hope not.

regardless, what I think is going to happen is that all of this action focused game play is going to go into the procedural created dungeons which in my opinion is perfect game design. So everyone mark this prediction and check back in a year. Last thing I think any of us want is to be 'mobbed' while we are smithing

 

Edited March 5 by CastIronFabric

[xaade]

Honestly, I hate the storms.
Not because they exist, but because there is no way to mitigate them.

Slabs work until you get to heavy storms, then they don't. Storms just seem to break all the rules.
So I got in a raft and just sailed out to nowhere. Worked until one day it just didn't and one of the spawns managed to snag me on the way falling down.

So, I just turn them off. 

It's a neat idea, but the fact that you can't have any kind of mitigation other than gearing up, and even then you could spawn things way above your current gear and they spawn literally anywhere but a 1x1 hole you're currently in.....

Naw. I'm good.

[Teh Pizza Lady]

 

3 hours ago, CastIronFabric said:

sorry I do not fully follow you I was not responding to you about that

That's okay. The nature of these forums is that there can be three different conversations happening at once, and people jump in and out of them at will. Basically I was mostly agreeing with you, which I realize might be confusing because I haven't been doing that much in this thread.

2 hours ago, The Lerf said:

the game is still unfinished. 

This. This right here.

Anything could happen in the meantime, including adjustments to storms or a more thorough introduction to them from the first trader you meet. Hopefully the player meets a trader in time, because realistically there is no way they should know about a temporal storm before then. I remember my first temporal storm. I had no idea what was happening and it was a mess. I never forgot it though. Now I suit up, grab my best weapons and armor, and prepare to defend my home. Yes, even the inside of my home.

3 hours ago, Garro said:

I never said they should be global. In fact I do not think that. If anything they should act more like real weather and blow through areas like actual storms we have in the game right now.

The nature of what they are simply doesn't allow that yet. Currently they are a global phenomenon, which is explained in the first two story chapters.

2 hours ago, xaade said:

Honestly, I hate the storms.
Not because they exist, but because there is no way to mitigate them.

I mean... same. I hate seeing the little pop-up that a storm is coming because I know I have about 20 minutes to prepare for it: stop what I'm doing, batten down the hatches, and make sure I have bandages and that my weapons and armor aren't about to break. It's a disruption, and the way the story is going I believe we're eventually going to try to find a way to stop it.

So for now, the storms stay. Not saying you have to keep them on, but you are missing a large part of what makes the game what it is. It would be like playing 7DTD without the Bloodmoon, Valheim without the raids, or Subnautica without the threat of the deep. It's environmental tension rather than just a scheduled attack mechanic. Even the spacing of the storms is somewhat randomized.

But to the title of the thread: do I think they are a bad implementation? No. But I do think there is room for improvement. Of that much, the rest of you have convinced me.

 

[EDIT]: Also welcome to the forums @xaade! I promise we're not always like this

Edited March 6 by Teh Pizza Lady

[Zane Mordien]

1 hour ago, Teh Pizza Lady said:

That's okay. The nature of these forums is that there can be three different conversations happening at once, and people jump in and out of them at will. Basically I was mostly agreeing with you, which I realize might be confusing because I haven't been doing that much in this thread.

I love when you/me/anyone has to clarify that, wait I was agreeing with you for a change. 

 

3 hours ago, xaade said:

Naw. I'm good.

Well, heres hoping they do something more fun with them in the future and you can come back and try them out again.

[Zane Mordien]

On 3/5/2026 at 1:18 AM, Teh Pizza Lady said:

rot beasts: I don't think drifters were ever supposed to be the only rotbeasts in the game. I think they are potentially placeholders for other rotbeast types. We have shivers and bowtorn now. 

Wait, does the game say drifters are rot beasts or is that typo for rust beasts? I've never thought of a drifter as a rot beast. The rot as I remember in the lore turns animals feral for lack of a better word, and then they try to kill everything sort of like a zombie. Then in the end the rot kills all living things leaving nothing behind.